explain_resource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description aligns by stating 'Get documentation', which is non-destructive. However, no additional behavioral context (e.g., if it requires specific permissions, if output is paginated, or if it mirrors `kubectl explain`) is provided. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get documentation for a Kubernetes resource or field'. Every word is essential, no filler, and it directly answers what the tool does. Excellent conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is brief but sufficient for a documentation retrieval tool. It covers the essential purpose. However, given that there is no output schema, the description could hint at the output format (e.g., plaintext or structure) to better set expectations. Still, it is adequate for most use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: every parameter (resource, apiVersion, recursive, context, output) has a clear description. The tool description does not add any further meaning to these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No parameter-specific elaboration is present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get documentation for a Kubernetes resource or field' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: retrieving documentation. It specifies the resource/field, which distinguishes it from action-oriented tools like kubectl_apply or kubectl_patch. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from kubectl_describe, which might show similar info, but overall purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that kubectl_describe shows runtime state while explain_resource shows documentation. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to guess usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.